The Third District Court of Appeal in Florida recently ruled on a personal injury case involving Jesus Alexander Diaz Cabrera and Abilio Andres Ortega Cabrera. The court denied a petition from the plaintiffs, Diaz Cabrera and Addanelys Almenares Mendoza, who sought to avoid compulsory medical examinations in Miami-Dade County. This ruling affects the plaintiffs' ability to contest the conditions of their medical evaluations following a car accident.
The case stems from a March 14, 2024, automobile accident in Miami-Dade County. The plaintiffs, now residing in Texas, argued that they should not be required to travel back to Florida for these examinations. The ruling is significant as it clarifies the conditions under which defendants can request medical examinations in personal injury cases.
In this case, the plaintiffs petitioned the court for a writ of certiorari to quash a discovery order issued by the trial court on June 21, 2026. The trial court's order required them to submit to medical examinations in Miami-Dade County, which the plaintiffs contested. They argued that the order was unreasonable given their relocation to Texas.
The plaintiffs were represented by Wasson & Associates and Carey Leisure Carney, while the respondent was represented by Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo, Cohen & Peterfriend. The case was overseen by Chief Judge SCALES and Judges FERNANDEZ and BOKOR.
The court ruled that when a plaintiff's physical condition is in question, the defendant has the right to request a physical examination. The court emphasized that the request must specify a reasonable time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination. The opinion stated, "We discern no abuse of discretion in ordering Petitioners’ examinations be conducted in Miami-Dade County, especially considering that the accident occurred in Miami-Dade County and Respondent has agreed to pay Petitioners’ reasonable and documented travel expenses."
In denying the petition, the court found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate any departure from the essential requirements of law. The court referenced previous rulings that established that the location of a medical examination is at the discretion of the trial court and that requiring parties to travel outside their home counties can be upheld.
This ruling has implications for personal injury cases in Florida, particularly regarding how medical examinations are handled. It reinforces the principle that courts have considerable discretion in determining the location of such examinations, especially when the circumstances of the case warrant it. The decision may set a precedent for future cases where plaintiffs seek to avoid medical exams in locations that are inconvenient for them.
The ruling also highlights the importance of the defendant's agreement to cover travel expenses, which can mitigate some concerns about the burden placed on plaintiffs required to travel for examinations. This aspect of the ruling may encourage defendants to be more accommodating in similar cases.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will seek to appeal this decision or if they will proceed with the medical examinations as ordered. The court's ruling does not appear to leave room for further legal maneuvering on this specific issue, but the plaintiffs may consider other legal strategies in their ongoing case against the respondent.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases or further actions from the plaintiffs. The outcome of this case may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly concerning the requirements for medical examinations in personal injury lawsuits.